'Dispiriting day for Special Counsel Jack Smith': SCOTUS considers Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in former president Trump's immunity claim. While they will ultimately decide whether or not former President Trump can be tried for plotting to overturn the 2020 election, they spent the day debating the distinction between personal and official acts. Katie Phang discusses with Peter Baker, Mark Joseph Stern, Josh Gerstein and Joyce Vance.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: www.msnbc.com/information/dow...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SCOTUS #Trump #JackSmith

[@SqueakyWeasel247]

It spoke volumes that they felt comfortable talking about how their decision may potentially weigh on future presidencies but felt uncomfortable talking about the case in hand!

[@fashe55]

Yep

[@Chulitatr]

...... Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

[@placitas52]

When I didn't think I could think less of this court.

[@zdwade]

You’re not a thinker.

[@user-hk1xg2tr7w]

FJB the liar and criminal FTDP🔥🙏🙏🔥🔥

[@fashe55]

They are scrapping the bottom of the barrel at this point.

[@robthatsme9831]

This is absurd. We already rejected a king.

[@aspenrebel]

King Donald I.

[@hellohsjkanhdhdhdbksks]

What do you think , can we prosecute ex presidents for crimes

[@Tessmage_Tessera]

@@hellohsjkanhdhdhdbksks Of course we can. We already are.

[@markg4257]

@@aspenrebel careful with that blade. Bush charged with lying, Obama charged with murder, Biden charged for illegal immigrant crime. Let’s not go there as a country. Only bad.

[@selftaopath]

He and all REDS want a dictator not a king.

[@carlosabram6030]

They were purposely ignoring the question because they and everybody else already knows the answer to that question

[@user-hk1xg2tr7w]

Yes we all know that the democrats are salty that the demon and Treasonous liars are the democrats.

[@Chulitatr]

They've been paid for by tRump and the GOP, that's why their SuperPACs, the RNCs funds are bankrupt and doesn't have money to campaign or rally now.

[@danielwilliams2505]

If justice Roberts is worried about the SCOTUS credibility, then the final verdict should be unanimous in no presidential immunity

[@Rhonda1969]

I’m speechless, floored, blown away that SCOTUS would play footsie with notion of absolute immunity. Terrifying prospect. We’re in deep trouble as a constitutional republic. 💙🇺🇸😢

[@TheAginG420]

I'm choosing to remain optimistic and believe that they are only hearing the arguments because it's an important question that needs a definitive answer in the negative. As in, hopefully, they didn't see not hearing the arguments as a way to put this to rest for good. I'm hopeful, anyway. Presidents are not immune, if they are then we are no longer a democracy. Or "constitutional republic" sure, fine.

[@user-hk1xg2tr7w]

As long as the liar, loser, demonic President Joe Biden doesn’t get back in office 😂😂

[@RegebroRepairs]

@@TheAginG420 I'll be surprised if they even make a decision before the election.

[@landon2150]

If you watch the oral arguments yourself it’s very plain to see that this reporting is a misrepresentation of the arguments and line of questioning. I’d recommend watching it yourself if possible. Both sides agreed total immunity was not the solution. It ended up being an argument about the process of holding a president accountable for criminal acts. One said he needs to be impeached first for a criminal proceeding to happen, the other said the current justice system can handle it without any additional precedent. Both sides agreed there are certain core presidential responsibilities and official acts that can’t be criminalized. The issue comes from the distinction of what “official acts” as president can’t be criminalized. Since a lower court already ruled there is no such “immunity” the Supreme Court now must rule either to confirm that, deny it, or somewhere in the middle. It’s going to be somewhere in the middle, which is why there was so much discussion surrounding the distinction between what a president does under his core powers as president and what he does personally or in some other capacity. Both sides had different interpretations of where that line should be drawn. Neither was saying the president is allowed to break the law without any way of holding him accountable.

[@GabeSteadyGeminiTaylor]

All righty! Let’s gooo, President Joe Biden, get ready to go CRAZY I guess!

[@bigneiltoo]

Biden going crazy would be called redundant.

[@DioZaWorldo]

@@bigneiltooyeah but soon he can do whatever he wants, immunity baybeeee

[@COLDB33R]

To be fair, Biden swore an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. If those domestic enemies happen to be sitting on the Supreme Court, and put there by an illegitimate president who only gained office with the aid of foreign enemies, so be it. He has still sworn an oath to go after them, and he should abide by that oath.

[@benhunter8551]

"My Butts Been Wiped!"

[@benhunter8551]

He passed that stage years ago.

[@lilithluv]

The Venal 6 that's what those SC justices are. 🤬🤬

[@bugwar5545]

Not as bad as the alt left ones. Those can't even define a woman, even with them being one.

[@peterbruno657]

Trump isn't arguing there should be "some type of immunity for Presidents". He is arguing that a President has absolute immunity.

[@Chulitatr]

////.. Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

[@gohboon7525]

Avoiding the QUESTION at hand aka CORRUPT & INCOMPETENT.

[@dannmarceau9743]

Lucifer patiently waits for Mitch McConnell's arrival.🔥

[@SteveM-gj2vy]

Lucifer exists in EVERY REPUBLICAN....it's not something in the future. Satan spirit is in every corrupt person and IT CANT BE CHANGED unless they are locked up.

[@tja3495]

followed by DJT.

[@Brombones2000]

@@tja3495 Not even the Devil would want Trump.

[@g_4784]

@@Brombones2000 No, he would prefer Biden, the "practicing Catholic" who believes in unrestricted abortion access.

[@selftaopath]

OH yea.... I can hardly wait. Hurry up Turtle.... get goin.

[@EmmaSmith-nn1ui]

An official act carried out corruptly ought to be prosecutable. If any official decisions by any official in any sphere are, for example, subject to bribery, they are corrupt and prosecution should follow.

[@robertmyers8352]

You can lead boldly and fearlessly without breaking the law.

[@lyricessence]

Dispiriting day for all Americans who treasure democracy.

[@Chulitatr]

That's RIDICULOUS for any judge having to define a crime for the SC, if they don't know the answer they shouldn't be on the SC!

[@rosegeaber7533]

Have we forgotten which “justices” are benefiting from the big money folks?! Speaks loudly to me!

[@cozettalandry3429]

So then I guess it would be ok for Biden can ignore the voting and state he will be in office for 4 years

[@SeattAl]

No , his plan is to import new voters from the 3 rd world and let non citizens vote

[@TheMangoMussolini]

It's not a "dispiriting day" for the Special Counsel. It is a disastrous day for the American people.

[@neal5068]

No it isn't

[@TheMangoMussolini]

@@neal5068 You're right. To traitors, it's a glorious day. But my statement is still correct, since traitors aren't included in the title "American people". Funny how that works, huh.

[@ThatLife4U]

More than half the country disagrees and sees this case for what it is.

[@TheMangoMussolini]

@@ThatLife4U More than half, huh? Proof? Yeah, thought so.

[@ThatLife4U]

@@TheMangoMussolini Take the last election numbers, then subtract all the voters Biden has lost over the last 2 years. It's relatively simple math

[@1alb]

It’s a ‘dispiriting day’ for anyone with a working moral compass.

[@ThatLife4U]

Set aside biased opinion and look past TDS. That's what SCOTUS is doing

[@user-hk1xg2tr7w]

And obviously you don’t have a moral compass. FJB Trump 2024

[@floodgatestudios1825]

I kept hearing the white male judges say..." well im asking these questions for the future....not necessarily for the case before us..." seriously??? How about desling with whats before you!

[@courtneybrubaker9738]

Six of them don’t want to. Thier goal is to protect Trump and replace our democracy with their Christian nationalist government. We must use our voice and vote to say NO.

[@ThatLife4U]

Race has nothing to do with it, do some critical thinking race grifter

[@marciabradley7660]

Maybe they are considered about their future?

[@Jerry-up8bk]

Desling?or deciding or dealing?

[@marybardmess7953]

It is not just a "notion" that this court is captured by the Leonard Leo and his gang of pirate oligarchs.

[@Wicky173]

A Dispiriting Day for the whole of the USA, I would think!

[@sheilawade433]

4:19 The Leo Leonard/Heritage Foundation chosen judges hands are tied by undue influences that are a burden to the court

[@junecauldwell6192]

What are OFFICIAL duties and unofficial duties? How does this apply to immunity for Presidents?

[@bigneiltoo]

The President WRITES laws. He is on par with Congress and SCOTUS even though he is ONE MAN (see balance of power). The President can PARDON HIMSELF. It's implied whatever he does is legal.

[@heyaisdabomb]

Well clearly, the justices think his "official duty" was to reject the electoral count, overthrow the election, and instill himself as dictator.

[@TriggaTrey361]

It's just a loophole to give immunity to their King 👑

[@TheMangoMussolini]

In fairness, there are differences. It would take a treatise to fully explain it, but it would be very useful to listen to the arguments presented by Mr. Dreeban (counsel for the Special Counsel) during oral arguments. However, that entire premise is wide of the point. The case in question has nothing to do about "official and unofficial duties", but the Conservatives on the Court MADE it about that. The only issue before the Court is the question of whether an ex-president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes. They are determined to carve out an exception for Baby Hitler.

[@ThatLife4U]

Official duties are done under the presidency and unofficial is done in a personal capacity. Not having clear cut points is why SCOTUS will send it down to the appeals court to identify which are which. Accept that this won't be settled by November

[@deborahtaylor9714]

It was amazing that SCOTUS entertained all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals for immunity yet destroyed Roe v Wade without regard to the real medical situations that women face. Their consideration for women’s reproductive health, on the side of the men, didn’t even really face real issues let alone hypotheticals. The mental gymnastics that were performed by Gorsuch, Alito et al yesterday was ridiculous. If SCOTUS doesn’t understand corruptly, private, how do we expect any accountability? How did they ever practice law before? Thank goodness for Justices Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor and Barrett. They stuck to the case at hand and the reality of the highest ranked official in the land having no accountability. Thank you, ladies.

[@Chulitatr]

Excellent post. Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

[@Jack_Callcott_AU]

OK Debbie. The court rejected the concept that there is a right to an abortion in, or implied by the US Constitution, that is a past judgement that has waited for a long time to be fixed. From a legal point of view it was the right thing to do, at least by my estimation. In the long run it is better than judges deciding that there exists "an inalienable right to abortion." What if a woman in labour wants an abortion an hour before her child will be delivered. Does she have an inalienable right to an abortion derived from the constitution?

[@coshawn311]

🗣️ we need to be honest with ourselves the Supreme Court is outdated

[@benhunter8551]

True. We need far-left SJWs to decide what the law is.

[@liamgross7217]

This is the problem with politicians selecting judges. If they rule a president is immune then good luck for the future, you’ll need it.

[@sekseemarcuskidd]

This ruling does not only effect Donald J Trump. It will effect every SINGLE president in our future. Get out of the present and look at the big picture.

[@bigneiltoo]

Liberals have spent 10 years of "two minutes hate" from 1984. They can ONLY see Trump bad.

[@Tcb0835]

​@@bigneiltoo😂😂😂

[@Educated2Extinction]

But... but... if Trump wins in November, there won't be a future.😫 🤣

[@AmusedCoffee-ym3gb]

Which is why they won't throw the book at him.

[@iPsychlops]

Yeah. Future fascists will get away without accountability.

[@jocelynlopez6858]

As I have always said, Roberts is tje weakest Chief I have seen and read!!!

[@sigsauer3719]

Turn out the lights the party is over…

[@TheAginG420]

Justice is slow. The odds are very much against trump avoiding any punishment whatsoever. Just give it some time. We'll see.

[@Chulitatr]

...... Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

[@robertdebrus3732]

The fix is in this democracy is cooked

[@romandevivo1163]

Country of law 😂😂😂 No one above the law 😂😂😂 Nothing more than incompetent and bought clowns in robes. A mockery of justice. Wake up folks.

[@user-tm4pz3we6w]

Imagine a political party that wants to take away a person's freedom of speech just because that person belongs to a different political party.

[@benhunter8551]

Don't have to, we're witnessing it in real time.

[@dlewis895]

SC SUPPORTING PUTINS RULE OF LAW NO JUSTICE RULE LIKE PUTIN WITH ANY OPPONENTS IE NAVALNY

[@aspenrebel]

Ah yeah!! Here in Mass, one such party locked up an Investigative reporter for 60 days for his freedom of speech. Then tried to lock him up again indefinitely on a dangerousness hearing. But the judge said no.

[@cowtownokla]

Freedom of speech doesn't insulate a person from freedom of consequences.

[@LifeFruit-re7mj]

It’s 10x more nuanced than that

[@paulhefner2813]

Plotting and Planning. you have got to be kidding. Guess you did not get your way.

[@dougkeyes4406]

because they are not interested in doing anything but allowing trump to stall them

[@marmac7619]

Thank You for sharing that Memorial provided by the Head of the World Central Kitchen. All they wanted to do was to feed hungry People that none of them knew or ever would! He reminded us that we are all interconnected w/ each other & this entire Planet! We live together in Peace or we all die ALL alone! Is it really worth it!

[@melissahubbard1181]

The conservative justices sounded like they were arguing the defense team’s case for them. Trump thanked them…

[@christihanyi5538]

Supreme Court, you are losing credibility with everyone

[@mtorres3097]

Why because it didn’t go your way?

[@christihanyi5538]

@@mtorres3097 I'd try to explain why if I thought you capable of understanding, but I conclude that would be a waste of my time.

[@J42494]

You mean follow the Constitution.

[@aspenrebel]

Phooey!! That doesn't mean anything.

[@Xcross40]

It’s never been done.

[@Tessmage_Tessera]

@@Xcross40 We're doing it now.

[@ClassicFIHD]

@@aspenrebel TRUE! To the three constitution hating liberals it means nothing.

[@aspenrebel]

@@ClassicFIHD of course not. But liberal is the wrong term to use, they're socialist globalists.

[@Phrostybacone]

The criticisms re: the lack of focus on Trump specifically in the arguments is ridiculous. The question addresses whether presidents in general should have some form of immunity against criminal prosecution, and that is a sweeping legal question that applies to all presidents in the future. Of course you can’t decide that just in regard to Trump, it has to be carefully thought about in the context of its potential future impact.

[@selftaopath]

Fart will do anything to avoid accountability.... ANYTHING.

[@terryhildrum3365]

Until now it was never a question, every president knew he could be held accountable for criminal actions. Now that's a big debate? Of course, the 6/9 SCOTUS majority members are also criminal and corrupt, so no surprise.

[@nigeltufnel9525]

Remember when the Republican party respected law and order, the Constitution and American values?

[@josephsonora3787]

WHEN FjoeB's "P-ed-0-filia" TRIAL? I'M ASKING FOR A FRIEND NAMED ASHLEY BIDEN.

[@BlackVulpes]

no, it was always just aesthetics. This is why we're here now.

[@dark14life]

No.

[@Lawlzinator]

Remember when the democrat party didn't go seeking wars and put the rights of corporations (like pharma companies) above the rights of American citizens?

[@ricksterbobolishious7523]

TRUMP. How does seeing that name make you feel?

[@superdave77]

This is what happens when you make up a fake case and choke

[@TheAginG420]

The case is real, otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't even hear it. By that alone your statement is false.

[@vbs4257]

As a country, we are so f'ed. 😢

[@bugwar5545]

Yeah, but with this decision, we are finally turning it towards the light. MAGA now! MAGA forever!

[@RegebroRepairs]

And as leaders of the democratic world, the world is as well.

[@WeLuv9x5]

IKR? How much more damage can We The People take with Biden!?! 🇺🇸Trump 2024🇺🇸

[@markg4257]

Biden read PAUSE on the teleprompter. Your worried about Trump?

[@RegebroRepairs]

@@markg4257 Yeah. Because Biden, best case, will be a good president, and worst case, he'll go senile and Kamala has to take over, and she'll be okayish. Trump, best case, will be a repeat of the worst president ever. And worst case, it will destroy US democracy. So stop worrying about Biden going senile, that's not an actual problem.

[@troopr3845]

I hope Biden and Obama and Clinton and Bush are ready to go to trial for their criminal cases.😅

[@jayneberkley9742]

Supreme Court Justices……eyes wide shut….America your in trouble…..

[@bugwar5545]

Supreme court justices ... eyes open and mind engaged ... America you're doing better.

[@fifiwoof1969]

Thanks Katie ❤❤❤❤❤.

[@wooganotti]

MSNBC and CNN are the only people that believe in unscheduled capital tour was an insurrection..😂😂😂😂😂

[@tmayorca8770]

Ikr, the second lefty commenter was quick with the false information saying it was an insurrection. The host of course did not confront him about the lie. Imagine a conservative guest claiming there was no insurrection. You'd know for sure probably the host would jump all over that.

[@g_4784]

@@tmayorca8770 I have yet to hear an actual precise definition of "insurrection" from these people that isn't overly broad and doesn't rely on circular logic.

[@Thebob6]

Trump isn’t even saying he committed a crime. All he is saying is what was always common sense until Trump derangement syndrome in 2015.

[@jeffmisch1485]

You mean MAGA.

[@BrianWeber-gt4ho]

No president has EVER had 100% immunity for life ever......

[@aspenrebel]

It has already been proven that Biden as vice president, took home classified documents after he stopped being Vice President. Has he been charged, indicted, arrested, prosecuted, and tried?

[@g_4784]

I'm confused as to why Trump's making the 'presidential immunity' argument instead of pointing out that he never actually committed a crime.

[@britishrocklovingyank3491]

What other president had to use immunity?

[@letsbereal9455]

Who's the second man who spoke (the one with the beard)? He seems emotional and not grasping the big picture.

[@brianbeaugez7003]

We've got to stop Trump at all costs. We must make up more charges and hope they stick, and if they don't we'll blame everyone we can, just like we're blaming the Supreme Court. Go Biden 2024!!

[@tigerslick1111]

This lispy soyboy hasn’t made a single point

[@IvanPowell-dt6vb]

That’s what I’m saying

[@KJamesB]

Another Magat

[@georgeoconnor4155]

Sickening

[@mikerahman7510]

What is to consider ?? What is their purpose ? SCotUS , do your job ! Regardless of whom you bow to.

[@tigrrtom]

A criminal act, regardless of whether it's official or private, is still a criminal act. The president has the best legal minds in the country at his disposal, so he/she should never do something that would be considered illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is plain in its text and meaning.

[@TheAginG420]

Well said.

[@rebeccasmith8567]

Another one bites the dust!😂😂😂

[@dark14life]

Biden to Seal Team Six: "Stand by for orders. The Orange Menace is the primary target. SCOTUS is secondary."

[@kenc7120]

Wow look at the party of unity calling for violence against those that don’t align with them.

[@kenc7120]

The tolerant left. 🤣

[@tejanoj3017]

No. Do it simultaneously like in The Godfather.

[@PrinceOtter]

​@kenc7120 you are the party of "1488" - you should pipe down about tolerance

[@dianaprince3176]

@@kenc7120If they’re going to give lifetime blanket criminal immunity to all living presidents, why wouldn’t they use it?

[@annmd1735]

Thank you Joyce Vance for the light of hope in seeing the treasonous acts brought to light, and hopefully justice..

[@craigsmith628]

Well Biden then in an official act as president can assinate Trump and the conservative part of the supreme court for the sake of democracy oh well do what you need to do Biden

[@craigamiclever7952]

We are going to have a hearing on Jan6th and Trump’s role in it. It’s scheduled for November 2024. I hear we are calling it an election.

[@g_4784]

Is this supposed to imply that most American voters are going to have J6 actively on their minds at the ballot box? Because nobody cares anymore.

[@TheAginG420]

He shouldn't be even allowed to run, period.

[@g_4784]

@@TheAginG420 Why

[@TheAginG420]

@@g_4784 Because he represents the worst that America has to offer as president. Because he tried to overthrow our democracy when he couldn't stand losing. Because he's a vengeful, petty, hateful man who doesn't care about anyone but himself. I could go on..

[@tejanoj3017]

It is no longer the SCOTUS we once knew. It's now the SCOTFS - SC of the federalist society. Follow the money.

[@tmayorca8770]

Lol. You are misinformation. Three are liberals. You big mad since the 9-0 TRUMP VICTORIOUS SLAM DUNK SCOTUS DECISION

[@kennethmeuleman1244]

The fix is in

[@DuoJet63]

IMHO.....It will be a 5-4 ruling in favor of immunity,

[@tonyscott6837]

I believe that the Supreme Court Justices should have a term limit. Additionally, I propose that the Supreme Court Justices should be elected by the people, rather than being appointed by the President. This would allow for greater accountability and transparency in the selection process. Furthermore, if any Justices are found to be corrupt, they can be voted out of office. In this way, we can ensure that the Supreme Court remains an impartial and just institution.

[@tmayorca8770]

That's hilarious. That's not how it works at all.

[@nathanb7281]

I believe they should have watched Weekend at Bernie’s before the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[@nathanb7281]

@@tmayorca8770That’s why he was expressing it as an opinion, Cletus.

[@tmayorca8770]

@@nathanb7281 And he's still wrong. Junior.

[@nathanb7281]

@@tmayorca8770 You’re opinion is wrong, Cletus. 🤣 Guess what else. If the Supreme Court determines that the President has immunity for everything. Biden could have Trump imprisoned and steal the next election. 🤣

[@druwk]

SCOTUS is broken.

[@kaypakaipa8559]

No its perfect, Upholding democracy to a T

[@Educated2Extinction]

Like when they refused to even hear any of Trump's election challenges? Or maybe they're just broken when they don't toe the line drawn by the left.

[@palehorse24681]

No it's not...its working fine. You're whole life is stupid so you're projecting onto other things.

[@tja3495]

Traitors

[@bugwar5545]

Yeah, but as soon as they get rid of the far left 'can't define a woman' justices, it will be a lot better.

[@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw]

Establishing what defines official vs personal acts would not be a bad thing, in this case and for future reference, however.

[@JimHaney-uc9ps]

For trump anything will be official, that’s what the sc wants for trump.

[@RegebroRepairs]

There has already been cases on this, so it's already established.

[@TheAginG420]

We already know what a president's official acts should be. The president has the power to direct limited military action and the power to veto bills and propose legislation. That's pretty much the extent of it. Anything a president does that involves their ability to persuade/influence because of their position does not fall under "official duties" as that power only comes from the position, itself. Asking for dirt to be dug up on his opponent, interfering with the election on a state and federal level, those things were him using his position to influence others. In no job is that an "official" act, unless you are a king. Then everything you do is official. IMO, he's already lost this argument, but I guess we will see.

[@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw]

@@TheAginG420 Then why are they arguing about it? Common sense would dictate the difference in most cases.

[@TheAginG420]

@@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw Not sure your point. It's common sense to me what is an official act and what's not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be clarified for the rest.

[@ImYourPapi.]

The meltdown is hilarious 😂

[@reyybarra390]

Alan Dershowitz predicted a unanimous 9-0 ruling for President Trump against the states trying to take off the ballot. He was correct! He is also predicting a 6-3 victory for President Trump in the immunity case. He has also said that msnbc, cnn and the other media experts have ALL been wrong in all of these court cases and calls them a JOKE!!! 😂😂😂

[@tja3495]

Who?

[@tmayorca8770]

Probably a 7-2 or even 8-1 victory. Even democrats don't want the president or future president arrested for being president

[@nathanb7281]

I hope he’s right! Then Biden can imprison Trump and encourage people to storm the Supreme Court or maybe even your house, Cletus!

[@aspenrebel]

Cuz They just following orders.

[@jazuren2585]

So then that means that Biden will have immunity. You want that?

[@ibeetellingya5683]

The 'conservative" Justices have done us a favor: they've effectively announced that the plot to replace Democracy is nationwide and deep, they're cheering it on, and they expect it to work.

[@noelpaintonsmith8091]

SOTUS needs term limits like everyone else. Let's start with getting Clarence Thomas out first. His time is up.

[@klovisKanofTrad]

The only thing disgusting is the first male guest has the most fascist views. He’s no American he’s a threat

[@bugwar5545]

Yep, Democrats firmly believe that following the constitution is a threat to America.

[@Yoduh1]

He got away with it. It will all be legal.

[@bugwar5545]

Well, that saves Brandon from being arrested by Texas and Florida for him leading an illegal invasion of the U.S.

[@paulworth7638]

got away with what?

[@g_4784]

@@paulworth7638 He got away with [dubious crime based on lacking evidence and a specious legal theory], of course!

[@user-ed9qr1uj6f]

It don't need to be redacted it needs to be reckoned with Pittman's Court Austin Texas moving force

[@FlawlessP401]

10:30 she has no authority to declare unofficial acts only congress can through impeachment.

[@battlestar99999999]

I thought you had to Logical to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[@annakingry9157]

And be American? And believe in democracy instead of fascism?

[@user-tm4pz3we6w]

Can you define what a woman is?

[@bugwar5545]

Nah, Jackson proved it ain't needed.

[@tmayorca8770]

They are and that's why they sided with Trump in the 9-0 SLAM DUNK decision in Trump's favor. Not even close. Liberal justices agreed with Trump too. Slam DUNK

[@nathanb7281]

@@user-tm4pz3we6wI think you meant this for Google.

[@gregknobloch]

Wake up America. This could be the end of good times.

[@xNialx]

They already passed a while back... its now a matter of damage control.

[@ScanCruiser]

Good times ended exactly one year into President Walking Dead's regime.

[@g_4784]

That we have ever seen good times since 2020 is quite the statement...

[@ThatLife4U]

Can you honestly say your life and the world is better now than 5 years ago? I doubt that you can

[@tammileroux3329]

I'm worried for a democracy

[@salvadorbravo4187]

We need SCOTUS term limits NOW!

[@Nothinleft]

This is a gross misjustice and I agree with you. Its absolutely garbage to hear this.

[@jeffhampton2767]

Marjorie Taylor Greene for the Supreme Court❤

[@mkay3310]

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Why not just stack the court? If there's a blue wave in 2024 and dems hold 50% of both houses and the White House, they could stack the Court to allow Biden to add more justices to the court. For example, they could double the court's size and Biden would have the ability to appoint a bunch of liberal justices. This would be easier than getting the 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all states necessary for an amendment to set term limits.

[@bugwar5545]

Right after you get congressional term limits. And Real ID voter laws.

[@wooganotti]

Good luck with that We can't get those for senators or congressman.. I mean hello pelosi, McConnell, Graham, and Schumer.. The people who have ruined this country for 40 years

[@landon2150]

I listened to the entire 2.5 hours of oral arguments and questioning for the presidential immunity case. It’s very disappointing to hear such misrepresentation of the arguments. This is bad and very biased reporting. Both sides agreed the president is bound to the law, the question was how he should be allowed to be held accountable. One side said through the process of impeachment and then criminal proceedings, the other said through the current justice system without a new precedent. Both conceded there were distinctions about how criminal law could be applied to the president for acts as president. There was a lot of common ground in the arguments. The justices also leaned into a vague general architecture for their questioning not applying it to this particular case alone, and didn’t even mention January 6 (they did use a protest the president participated in as an example). Please go watch the full arguments if you don’t want crap from news outlets like this one.

[@David-qn8ot]

A man who committed zero felonies all of the sudden committed 93? And an insurrection? Pleeeeezee!

[@heyaisdabomb]

He's committed crimes his whole life, just the rich play by a different book. Seriously, look into his realastate dealings. He's been doing this mark it up for bank loans and mark it down for taxes for decades. Can't buy a property for 9 million, say it's worth 80 million to a bank, and then say it's worth $800,000 for taxes. Yes, he did that. And yes, the victim who was hurt was us, the tax payer who missed out on the taxes he should have been paying. Not a victimless crime.

[@David-qn8ot]

@@heyaisdabomb you gotta address your TDS…. Do your best to treat it. Everyone loved Trump till he became president. You probably watched his show and laughed and loved him. Now, just like crazy liberals, you changed your tune.

[@David-qn8ot]

@@heyaisdabomb you are so naive. Every real estate investor operates the same way. It’s the banks obligation to value a property just like when anybody buys a house. The bank made money. If you don’t think it’s political then you are just lying to yourself. Hopefully, you aren’t that duped by MSNBC.

[@Tessmage_Tessera]

@@David-qn8ot No matter what you think, no matter what you say and no matter what you do, Trump is going to prison. MAGA is too weak to stop us. _But please try._

[@mtorres3097]

@@heyaisdabombexplain how politicians become millionaires on a government salary.

[@marymathers2429]

Sad. Democracy downfalls, history will not be kind. America deserves better! If you get the chance,VOTE Blue

[@davidrothstein5664]

Nfw

[@bugwar5545]

Don't bother. Brandon's handlers have the 3 a.m. ballot dumps already printed.

[@user-zc5nb2fv7q]

What good has it done to vote Blue ? The last 5 years has been a disaster! We are not better off with the green new deal or build back better bidenomics!

[@TheAginG420]

Oh yeh, I'm with ya. If the only way we can stop this madness is to vote, I guess so be it.

[@sps000111]

This question is easily answerable. The 12th Amendment requires state legislatures to assign electors. If there is a matter before the legislature, Free Petition under the 1st Amendment, excepting quid pro quo, applies. Trump exercised a well-established Constitutional Right, and that is not a crime. Simple!

[@gnirolnamlerf593]

Exactly what illegal acts does the Constitution say the president is allowed to commit after taking the oath "to faithfully execute the laws". How is committing an illegal act faithfully executing laws? We know that the military is not required to follow a president's orders if he orders them to commit an act that violates their oath. The suggestion by the right wing that presidents need to have the right to break the law with impunity is exactly what kings and dictators are allowed to do. Why bother with a revolution in 1776? Why bother having a Supreme Court sitting in Washington? Should have just allowed British courts to continue to rule on orders of the Parliament and king on cases in America, if that's the system they want. Which side would Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Gorsuch have been on in 1776? Well, Thomas might have been a slave, who would have argued that slavery actually helped him, as Gov. DeSantis does, but I think we know where the others would have come down.

[@Image-X]

What a great day!

[@rabbitwhisperer]

The president is an upholder of the law. Not held over the law. Every grammar school kid knows that. 🤡

[@XaphillyatedX]

The govt has terrible litigators .... they just go off course and let the judges send them chasing their tails. Never would i have responded to a justice that says he is not there to to discuss the case before him. I would have said well your honor that is the ONLY reason i am here, wer'e not in law school. the justices were questioning their own judicial system as not being honorable or reliable

[@bugwar5545]

The government did the best they could to twist the reality into something that conformed to alt-left dogma.

[@romantemniuk9881]

Lol lions and tiger and bears oh my,!!!!

[@COLDB33R]

They don't even try to hide their corruption. That's an indication of how untouchable they consider themselves to be. And most of them should have recused themselves from a case involving the person who put them on the court. Disgraceful.

[@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw]

The 5 conservative justices were doing all they could to avoid the question, and muddy the waters. It's clear what they are doing (delay), and what they will do (give Trump what he wants).

[@alexwalker5645]

And what about the “non-conservative” judges?

[@bigneiltoo]

If only it was like NYC whose point is (give fat women what she wants).

[@benhunter8551]

@@alexwalker5645 They were still trying to figure out what a woman is.

[@scoobydoo7737]

God forbid a scotus judge not know what a word really means..... Like the word woman

[@peterbruno657]

Why does the logic stop at President? Wouldn't Secretary of State, Senators, or even a Mayor have immunity too? They have to act boldlyand could become the victim of politically motivated prosecutions.

[@janeingram7331]

If trump becomes president and has immunity, he could have the entire SC executive legally.

[@rebeccasmith8567]

??

[@junecauldwell6192]

Executed? Is that what you meant?

[@bigneiltoo]

No, he would be impeached like you did TWICE over phone calls and comments.

[@tmayorca8770]

You have three liberals on the court

[@nathanb7281]

He may not become President because Biden could just say no and imprison him. 🤣

[@craigamiclever7952]

You’re attacking the Court because they don’t agree with you is disgusting. You seem willing to destroy anyone or anything to have your way.

[@TheAginG420]

Having an opinion is an attack? Seems to me that if things don't go your way, you will likely be the one "attacking"

[@Shweetthooth]

Lol poor Jackie. He's going to go sit in the corner.

[@Iammusprase384]

SUPREME CLOWNS HELPING CLOWN IN CHIEF

[@ULTIMATUMDEVIL]

YOUR DAD WEARS MAKEUP? 😮

[@Iammusprase384]

@@ULTIMATUMDEVIL YOURS WEAR SHEETS AND RIDES DOGS

[@williamstroud5449]

Former clown

[@endthegenocideingaza]

@@ULTIMATUMDEVIL

[@ULTIMATUMDEVIL]

@@endthegenocideingaza BETA. PRESS NEWEST AND READ

[@MVbailegardens]

Evidence becoming public. All in favor......

[@rmoojet157]

You're news reporting is drivil!

[@dougsinthailand7176]

Enjoy your last few months of democracy. Decide on how you will live under trump II.

[@Karenbuckert]

NO ONE is above the law….FORMER President or not. Thomas should recuse himself, possibly a few others. This is a matter of law as defined by the Constitution…..not the politics of the day. Yes, decision may impact the future…..but the here and now….needs to be defined.

[@helengrim691]

All your big words Reporters don't mean nothing .

[@ngtony2969]

Maybe you should finish learning small words first so you can at least construct a complete sentence.

[@davidg3944]

@@ngtony2969 They don't have any competent teachers left at the Russian propagandist schools. They've all been sent to the meat grinder in Ukraine.

[@TheAginG420]

"You say big words, you make fun of grunk?"

[@Red_Race_Nation]

Politicized 😂oh pls the white house has been trying to persecutee their opponent, the justices are looking at these people like they’re crazy.

[@davidg3944]

No, we're looking at you like you're crazy. Unless you're a foreign agent. Then you're just a fool working for evil governments.

[@sheilaboston7051]

You need to have a little word with all the Grand Juries that proposed the indictments - five to date, I believe, including the civil trial for fraud.

[@TheAginG420]

Get out of my face with that. trump literally used his presidency to try to dig up dirt on Biden. Heard him on tape. You got something like that out of the White House or are you just speculating? Yeah, speculating, that's what I thought.